Up about 0800.

Very down.

Trying to work out the reasons.

First, it is very unusual for me to go on a long hike and be down. The walks usually result in a very stable mood, an increase in innate confidence and the ability to tackle complex problems. Today the outcome is 100% reversed.

Yesterday, I went to the University Concussion Group. On the walk back, I had the following thoughts:

1) The Chief University Contact (CUC) had the university funding team present. The goal is to set up a bank account and obtain funding, drawing on the contacts of the concussion victims themselves. I see this as institution building on the part of the CUC. He is building an organization and creating increased sources of funding for the university. He ends up looking very good and due for a promotion.

2)The Chief Researcher, also an affiliate of the same University, has a number of research projects on the go. These are all being funded by the province. So I am unsure of the target use for the new funds.

3) I presented, or rather I made the attempt to present, my particular project. This got a big squelch from the CUC. He made a valid point – unless there exists a specific project which serves as a funding focus, that there is no basis on which to move forward. I both agree, and disagree, with that position.

4) My sense is that this is becoming a Chablis, cornichons, and crevettes, research project. In the world of climate change this is called green washing. You offer the wealthy an opportunity to make a symbolic payment and this relieves them of any further responsibility with regards to CO2 emissions. The modest payment delivers the freedom to live a guilt free energy profligate lifestyle while permitting the donor to feel they contributed to the solution. If this is called green-washing then the university group appears to be engaged in concussion-washing.

5) The Chief Researcher is moving ahead on a number of projects which result in increased early detection and triage of mTBI. No problems with that. He suspects, and I strongly agree based on what I have been able to learn, that mTBI is greatly under diagnosed. His innovations will increase the detection rate of mTBI victims.

The problem I foresee is the likely response of government (In fact I have been using this outcome in pushing my own project proposal). The government officials I have dealt with, both provincial and federal, all the way up to Cabinet Minister, are extremely sensitive to the presence of intractable problems. They face enough of these as it is. They will immediately sense the looming liability inherent in an improved diagnostic process which results in a significant increase in the numbers of affected individuals (and existing research shows 40% of the present homeless population to be associated with an mTBI injury prior to becoming homeless – this is my current life trajectory). The problem is self-compounding and non-trivial in scope.

Governments will recoil at the prospect of spending money on detection measures which result in significant increases in their downstream costs. No government, especially not a heavily indebted government, will spend on measures which increase their future liabilities and offer no means to mitigate them. Government will back away from this form of proposal like the red-hot potato it is.

And those who argue that government will never engage in wilful ignorance are deceiving themselves with a jejeune view of the political system. Willful ignorance exists precisely because it serves someone’s interests. Typically economic. And definitely not congruent with your own interests. Or, in this case, the interests of those persons with mTBI injury. And if you do not believe this please go and talk to a citizen surviving on a $1,000 a month ODSP payment. No Chablis, cornichons and crevettes for them.

That is my analysis of the situation.

But I think the real reason I am down is I got a big squelch from the CUC. I am less perturbed by that fact. I have been squelched by better men than he. I am down because the interaction at the meeting displayed the great contrast between my abilities on paper, and my abilities “real world.”

In my submissions to TAQ and elsewhere, I spend hours, and hours, and hours, of effort in writing briefs. And then I spend hours, and hours, and hours, in editing those same briefs. And the final outcome is a document which contains a reasonable presentation of some aspect of my case against the insurer.

My problem arises when I am in a social setting and I lack the same opportunity for constant review and polishing. My utterance comes out lopsided, half-cocked, and problematic. I do not yet know how to deal with this fact. My immediate response is to abandon all participation in this University Concussion Group. Which is the same response I took in regard to the Ottawa Valley Volunteer group.

I cannot keep walking away. If I do I will walk right off the edge of the planet.